Post #8

There are many different ways that a teacher could address Lisa's behavior in the CSEL case study for elementary education. Below are some possible ways to address the situation from a behaviorist, constructivist, and cognitive viewpoint.
Behaviorist: 
* The teacher could use positive reinforcement by giving Lisa a piece of candy if she cooperates and works well with her group.
* The teacher could use negative reinforcement by not requiring Lisa to do homework if she cooperates and works well with her group.
* The teacher could use punishment by removing Lisa from the group and requiring her to do all the work herself or even making her work during recess if she refuses to work cooperatively with her group.
Constructivist:
* The teacher might speak with Lisa privately and ask her to think about what is going wrong, why it is a problem, and how she can fix it.
* The teacher might refrain from intervening and allow the group of students to resolve the problem on their own.
 * Below is a website with some great examples of how constructivism can be used in the classroom...
Guidelines for Implementing Constructivist Alternatives to Discipline
 Cognitive:
* The teacher could model how to effectively work with a group and resolve disputes within the group.
* When disputes arise, the teacher could have Lisa practice identifying the problem, generating possible solutions, evaluating solutions, implementing a solution, and evaluating the outcome.
* Below is an article with some excellent examples of how cognitive strategies can be used in the classroom...
Cognitive Behavioral Interventions

These three viewpoints are all very different. Behaviorism basically treats Lisa as if her brain is a black box and the motivation behind her behaviors are irrelevant. All that matters is her behavior. Constructivism revolves around the theory that students construct their own knowledge. Cognitive strategies strive to provide students with the necessary tools to control their own behavior. There are certainly positives and negatives to each of the theories. I do not like the way that behaviorism totally ignores the reasons why a student is behaving a certain way. I work with a lot of students in an urban environment, and I have learned that it is often very important to find out why a student is behaving a certain way. For example, if a student is falling asleep in class, it is important to know whether that is because they chose to stay up to late playing video games or whether its because their family was kicked out of their apartment and spent most of the night trying to find a place to stay. The second scenario was totally out of the student's control and I do not believe that they should be punished for that. However, I also do not like the fact that constructivism does not explicitly tell the students what behavior is appropriate. I have known some students who thought physical violence was the appropriate way to handle a dispute. Based on their experiences and the environment they had grown up in, this is what they found to be true. They fight in order to defend themselves and others. However this behavior is obviously unacceptable in school. Yet, students shouldn't just be expected to know that if it is totally contradictory to what they have experienced outside of school. In cases like this, I think students do need to be directly told what is and isn't acceptable behavior. Overall, I think my personal theory of learning aligns most closely with the cognitive viewpoint. I like that it encourages students to think about their behavior, but it also teaches them explicit strategies for managing that behavior.